The answer to the question posed in this topic's title is easy: yes, a PR convicted of a crime and sentenced to more than six months actual imprisonment CAN be deported.
BUT NOT summarily. The process can be complicated.
In particular, the fact of inadmissibility does NOT mean all PRs convicted of a crime and sentenced to six months imprisonment will be deported. Not all will even have their PR status terminated.
As
@Buletruck cited, Section 36(1)(a) IRPA prescribes that a PR is inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality if convicted of a crime "
for which a term of imprisonment of more than six months has been imposed." See
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-8.html#docCont
How this actually, practically affects a particular PR who is "inadmissible" on such grounds, however, can be more complicated. For example, who actually is subject to process resulting in the loss of status is a separate matter, and then who actually gets deported tends to be a complicated subject notwithstanding determinations of inadmissibility and loss of status.
Note that there are several IRPA statutory provisions which specify when a PR is inadmissible. This includes sections 34, 35, 36 (this is the "serious criminality" statute), 37, 40, 40.1, and 41 (subsection 41(b) prescribing PR inadmissibility for failing to comply with the Residency Obligation). Again, see
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-8.html#docCont and subsequent pages.
Separate statutory provisions govern procedures related to determinations and consequences as to inadmissibility, with some variation in the applicable procedures and consequences depending on the particular grounds for inadmissibility. For example, as
@PMM cited, section 64(1) IRPA prescribes that "
no appeal may be made to the Immigration Appeal Division . . . by a permanent resident if . . . the permanent resident has been found to be inadmissible on grounds of . . . serious criminality." (Nonetheless there are scores and scores of IAD and Federal Court decisions reviewing cases involving PRs found to be inadmissible for serious criminality; more about this below.) In contrast, there are specific provisions prescribing the right of a PR to appeal a Removal Order generally and visa office decisions as to compliance with the Residency Obligation. (See section 63 IRPA at
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-12.html#h-32 )
It warrants emphasizing that the form in which the statute prescribes a PR is "inadmissible" for serious criminality (again, section 36(1) IRPA) is the same as the form in which another statute (section 41(b) IRPA) prescribes that a PR who fails to comply with the Residency Obligation is "inadmissible." This forum is rife with examples of PRs who failed to comply with the RO, and thus were "inadmissible" as prescribed by IRPA, but who have NOT lost PR status let alone been deported. That noted, there is a big difference in how such matters are handled and, in particular, what the ultimate outcome is for various PRs in various circumstances, including many more PRs inadmissible due to a breach of the RO being allowed to keep status (many without ever even being reported) than those who are inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality.
THE TAKE-AWAY HERE IS THAT "INADMISSIBILITY" ITSELF IS
NOT SELF-ENFORCING. THE FACT THAT A PR IS, AS DEFINED BY STATUTE, "INADMISSIBLE,"
DOES NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN LOSS OF STATUS LET ALONE ACTUAL DEPORTATION.
In particular, an inadmissible PR is still a PR unless and until there is a formal adjudication terminating the PR's status. Participants in this forum are well-familiar with the procedures involved in formal proceedings to terminate a PR's status due to a breach of the RO. And the fact that if a PR in breach of the RO, thus inadmissible, is allowed to enter Canada without being reported, that PR can simply stay in Canada long enough to in effect cure the breach as long as the PR does not engage in any transactions with CBSA or IRCC until the PR has been in Canada long enough to cure the breach. We know what triggers RO examinations.
We do not know what will trigger an inadmissibility hearing for serious criminality. It is safe to apprehend that the same kinds of transactions which can trigger RO examinations are likely to trigger an inquiry into inadmissibility for serious criminality (perhaps a GCMS/FOSS check when the PR applies for a new card or for citizenship, for example, or is screened upon arrival at a PoE while returning from a trip abroad). BUT it is also apparent the procedure to determine inadmissibility for serious criminality can be otherwise triggered. A referral from law enforcement? From the courts? A CBSA or IRCC officer initiating the process upon observing a high profile criminal case? There are many possibilities.
What we do know is that something needs to trigger the process, that the mere fact of inadmissibility is NOT Self-Enforcing. Absent an inadmissibility hearing, and a decision at such a hearing concluding the PR is inadmissible for serious criminality, the mere fact a PR has been sentenced to more than six months imprisonment will not result in the loss of PR status, let alone deportation.
Which brings this to the matter of actual deportation. The enforcement of Removal Orders is yet another layer of procedure necessary BEFORE a person, PR or former-PR, can be physically deported. I do not intend to elaborate about this other than to note these procedures can also be complex. Indeed, there is a great deal about this process I am NOT much acquainted with or knowledgeable about. I do not know much about who or why some PRs found to be inadmissible for serious criminality have had their removal proceedings suspended; I am familiar with the fact that scores of official cases are about this.
The TAKE-AWAY here is that even when adjudicated to be inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality, many such PRs are allowed to remain in Canada. (Note: many of these are individuals brought to Canada as a child, precluded from citizenship due to criminal prohibitions, and for whom actual deportation would impose undue hardship. But this does not describe all the cases in which such individuals are not actually deported.)
AVAILABILITY OF APPEAL OR OTHER REVIEW:
As
@PMM observed, there is no "RIGHT" to an appeal for a PR determined to be inadmissible on the grounds of serious criminality.
Nonetheless there are scores and scores of both IAD decisions and Federal Court decisions reviewing various aspects of Immigration Division and other decisions in some way about a PR determined to be inadmissible for serious criminality. As I noted, the subject is huge, and even mere slices of it are huge, including how, why, and when an appeal or further review is allowed. I will not attempt to unravel the latter other than to emphasize that more than a few PRs found to be inadmissible and issued a Removal Order for serious criminality have been allowed to appeal and have won the appeal. See, for example, Gabriel v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 CanLII 131910 (CA IRB),
http://canlii.ca/t/hxlvc
The grounds for granting the Gabriel appeal are rather obvious, given that the Removal Order was based on a conditional sentence for more than six months and the Canadian Supreme Court has ruled that conditional sentences are NOT a "term of imprisonment" under the statute. This was in Tran v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2017] 2 SCR 289, 2017 SCC 50 (CanLII),
http://canlii.ca/t/h6pmh AND is of course yet another example of a case in which a PR appealed a Minister's delegate decision to refer the respective inadmissibility report to the Immigration Division.
Again, I will not attempt to unravel how or why or when an appeal is available. Such cases illustrate PRs are, at least in some cases, allowed an appeal or otherwise allowed judicial review.
ALL THAT SAID: PRs charged and convicted of crimes are very much at risk for losing PR status. Many might be surprised by what constitutes "serious criminality." It is not merely about big offences like murder, rape, kidnapping, armed robbery, or such. Even driving while impaired convictions can lead to a sentence in which a term of imprisonment is imposed that surpasses the serious criminality threshold.
Unless and until a PR becomes a citizen, there is a potential for losing status for criminality, and to my understanding this can include convictions for crimes which do not require any specific intent to commit a crime (such as crimes based on recklessness resulting in injury).
